Feb 7, 2007

Miller Greens survey results available

Many, many thanks to all of you who took the time to answer the survey about the Miller Greens project at 24th and Thomas. Here's the answer to the BIG question:

and here are all the answers (as a PDF).


Background:
Frazier Park neighbors approached Miller Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) seeking support for their position on the Miller Greens project, and supplied both a proposed draft resolution, and a copy of the resolution adopted by the Greater Madison Valley Community Council (GMVCC).

Methodology: I turned the GMVCC's resolution into a web-based survey and posted details here . I informed the ~ 250 neighborhood association members of the existence of the blog entry and the survey, via our (City sponsored) listserv. The survey was available from 7PM on 2/4/07 till 1 PM on 2/7/07. I issued one reminder E-mail, and the survey was also mentioned on the Capitol Hill Seattle blog.

Results: I was most pleasantly surprised by the large response to the survey: 44 replies. I attach a copy of the survey summary. Individual responses are available: they're identified only by the IP address of the respondent. (A glance at the IP addresses didn't reveal any obvious "ballot box stuffing" ). I used the free trial of the survey software: if I pay their $19.95 monthly fee I can download the results, analyze them further and share them with you.

Note that the blog page prompted several very thoughtful responses from readers.

Conclusions: 79% self-identify as MPNA members (residents, property or business owners). We could tease out their responses if needed (see above).

Almost all support: the Comp Plan, density, Urban Villages, Green buildings and the high density corridor along Madison.

Most agree that 24th is great "family friendly" neighborhood with lots of long term residents. Most of the others have no opinion.

They are however, almost equally divided as to whether "The long-standing boundary between this high-density corridor and the surrounding residential zoning should be respected". They are also undecided as to whether there are sites for the project available within the Urban Village boundary: many don't know.

Most significantly, a large majority disagree with the statement " The proposed development at E. Thomas and 24th Ave. will degrade the long-term family oriented quality of the neighborhood" and a similar majority not believe that the zoning change should be denied.

In Summary: our neighborhood overwhelmingly supports urban density, but does not believe that the proposed development will degrade the character of the neighborhood, and does not support efforts to deny the proposed zoning change.

Comments: I reiterate the CHS viaduct survey report's caveat about selection bias.

Maarten's concern:

I might point out that the resolutions put forth by the Frasier Neighborhood Assoc are biased and designed to lead to their conclusion. Since survey uses their logic and phrasing, the results you get from the survey will be biased in the direction they seek.
seems to have been unwarranted. Alternatively, we could infer that it just strengthens the conclusion of the survey, as it produced the strong answer that it did, despite the "leading questions".

A Frazier Park neighbor speculated:

I might guess that most of the respondents have seen dramatic (and possibly negative) impacts of the rezoning in their neighborhood and could want to "spread the pain", or possibly, your own question - " So the question, in my mind, is whether we can afford to continue to protect single family housing against all intrusions?" - captures the feeling.
Thanks again for the speedy and thoughtful responses. Anything else you'd like to be surveyed about?

3 comments:

m said...

please excuse me for being completely confused -- you have a lot double negatives. So do your survey responds think Miller Greens is ok and that they are amenable to rezoning? Does that differ from the neighborhood association public opinion?

Thanks for the clarifications,
A neighbor

Andrew Taylor said...

Miller Green project applied for rezone. Their immediate neighbors oppose the rezone.

The Miller neighborhood (question 8, 28 of 44 with 5 abstentions) is amenable to rezoning.

They voted against the immediate neighbors proposal to oppose the rezone (I think that's only 1 double negative!).

They also do not believe that the project will "degrade the long-term family oriented quality of the neighborhood" (Question 6: 29 of 44 with 5 abstentions).

"Does that differ from the neighborhood association public opinion? " The function of the survey was to establish neighborhood association public opinion.

Sorry about the double negatives: the questions were taken from another neighborhood association's resolution, which OPPOSED the rezone. So in voting to DISAGREE with their resolution, we SUPPORTED the rezone.

Thanks for asking,

Andrew

Anonymous said...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H e l l o . . . N i c e . . . B l o g . . . P U S H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .